Congressional Republicans say a whole lot of questions "need to be an swered" about an inspector general's report detailing how the White House altered a scientific paper that it used to justify a controversial drilling moratorium after the BP oil spill last spring.

They're right.

Almost from the moment the report was first made public, most of the scientists involved said it had been deceitfully edited to make it look like they'd endorsed the ban, which Gulf-state elected officials immediately denounced as a job-killer.

Now the Interior Department's inspector general, Mary Kendall, has determined that those allegations are correct -- and that the White House falsely applied a scientific veneer to justify what was clearly a political decision.

Which is precisely what eight of the 15 scientists involved called it when they publicly protested the editing.

"The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct," they said in a fax earlier this year to Louisiana's governor and two US senators. "But he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

Ironically, of course, it was candidate Barack Obama who accused the Bush administration of twisting scientific evidence; he promised, if elected, to be guided by "science, not ideology."

And it turns out that this is just one of several instances in which the Obama White House has manipulated the word of scientific experts.

While their at it, they can look at the science that says breathing is polluting (CO2).

Citation, please.

They have never stated such. Please point to where the relevant text would include breathing as a case where it is considered polluting.

Micturation is a natural human bodily function, but you wouldn't want it directed at your beer. Context is everything.

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

If I breath out carbon dioxide and my car puts out carbon dioxide if I were to compare the molecule from each would there be any difference? The whole notion of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant is worse than bogus. Carbon dioxide is ESSENTIAL to life. Life craves it. It is less than one part per thousand because plants have become so effective at pulling it out from the air!

8
posted on 11/13/2010 3:08:05 AM PST
by Nateman
(If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)

I breathe out a gram of CO2 every breath. The point of the comment is that there are many more sources of the evil gas than is accounted for in the EPA’s highly idealogical findings. And if you want to go all in with Methane, the Feds funded a study on cow digestion for $700,000. They are getting to that subject if they have the time.

Use your own lying eyes to gauge any destruction of the earth since Paul Erlich predicted our demise in 1974. Myl assertion is that the entire ecological movement is based on lies and adolescent emotionalism. It’s never been seriously challenged and tested by any rational metric. Until now.

Nutso. When that is proven ridiculous, theyll just move on to something else. And Im sure its eating them alive to know that trading carbon credits isnt going to make them all billionaires.

Correct ... the interesting thing is now that its been debunked and the CCX is collapsing ... along with all the other "investors" (Al Gore etc) ... it has slowed to almost a stop. Take the money out and watch it fall apart. It was about greed and money, not saving the planet. Such fools to believe man is powerful enough to alter the climate of a planet ... such arrogance. The "little people" that invested in this deserve the fleecing they are getting.

13
posted on 11/13/2010 4:59:22 AM PST
by ThePatriotsFlag
(You are just jealous because the voices aren't talking to YOU!)

just one of several instances in which the Obama White House has manipulated the word of scientific experts.

Hmm... could it be that the Obama White House has a problem with this...

"...that truth is greatand will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "

[My assertion is that the entire ecological movement is based on lies and adolescent emotionalism.]

"ReviewThere are many connections between the Green movement and Communist forces: this outlines these connections, examining changing American values, Green influences, and Communist party lines with an eye to revealing possible Communist connections within the Green party realm. A thought-provoking book. -- Midwest Book Review --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title."

You did not answer the first question. Can you tell apart a carbon dioxide molecule from a car from that of a person. The rest is a straw man argument. Are you a liberal who has wondered on in here by mistake?

20
posted on 11/14/2010 12:59:03 AM PST
by Nateman
(If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.